As Bible scholars have studied the texts of the New Testament, many have come to the conclusion that a historical man named Paul was not the author (whether writing himself or by dictation) of all the letters bearing his name. The six disputed letters of Paul includes: Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus. Even the Catholics acknowledge this at https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm.
What's up with texts claiming the name of Paul in the Bible, but it not actually being him? Was the name Paul pseudonym a group of people wrote under? Did people just lie about who their writing was from to give what they wrote prominence among people who viewed Paul as an authority? Interesting that the Pastoral Epistles in the NT are fraudulent.
((Bible scholars))
The Church is the ultimate authority on what texts are canonical. If you reject that authority, then you're not Christian and you reject everything about the faith, including the rest of the Bible because it's a package deal. This means you're operating under a non-Christian worldview where authority is placed elsewhere (like whatever some secularists or new agers think).
What Church? They have no authority other than self-proclaimed authority and any authority you give them. They claimed authority for themselves, cherry-picked texts that they corrupted and claimed was actually the word of God. They're the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. In regards to who is and isn't a Christian, your cult doesn't have a monopoly on the term. Yes I reject Christianity and the stuff usually promoted that goes along with your faith. You're operating under an atheistic worldview if you're searching for God in a book and depending upon other people to teach you about God. There was a lot of variety in early Christianity and worldviews outside of Christianity have good and bad points just like whatever your worldview is.
Strawmen galore. I can tell you come from a Protestant background and hold the Protestant presuppositions. Makes sense that you became gnostic new ager.
State whatever it is you call Church and why it's an authority then. Who decided it's the ultimate authority for determining truth? I'm still waiting for you to attempt to prove your Trinity God. Sounds like you put this Church on the throne of God within you and worship man that you project onto whatever kind of God you believe in.
Sure. The one universal, holy and apostolic Church is both a divine and a human, a mystical and a physical historical institution (not an abstraction), established by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second person of the Godhead, here on Earth, following the messianic prophecies of the OT. Christ appointed His apostles as the leaders of His Church and sent the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost (around 33AD). The Church is the living Body of Christ in which all believers are joined and participate in the uncreated divine grace through the sacraments (like baptism, chrismation, eucharist, matrimony).
Thus Church's authority comes from the apostles who pass the Holy Spirit through laying of hands to their successors - the bishops (as seen in Acts). This apostolic succession continues uninterrupted to this day and forms a living tradition from Christ to the bishops and clergy of today. The Church structure is decentralized and synodal and it's headed by Christ and not any particular bishop (as papalists believe).
The Holy Scripture itself is a part of that tradition as is its correct interpretation (because no text interprets itself, but is understood through a paradigm). The totality of the tradition is the deposit of God's revelation to His people - the Christians. The Church tradition is also a continuation of the OT hebrew covenantal tradition of Abraham.
So you view your church as God? You're going to have to elaborate on how this entity is both divine and human. How do you know that for sure? How do you know someone named Jesus actually established it? Were you there? Did God tell you that or show you that? Are the people that are telling you this Church thing is special the ones controlling the books that they derive that from? That's rather convenient. Do you have the receipts to prove an uninterrupted apostolic succession? How do you know that those events actually occurred in around 33 AD when the texts you use to derive that from were written decades later? Besides, Luke 24 presents the ascension happening on the same days as the resurrection, while Acts 1 says it happened 40 days later. They both can't be historically accurate. Looks like allegory with deeper meaning and not historical accounts.
You hold a guy to be an apostle of Jesus that just claimed himself to be an apostle and never actually met Jesus. In Galatians, Paul said he got all his stuff from visions of Jesus. How does anyone verify that? It's a trust me bro situation. In other words, could've easily made it up. There's obvious tension in a literal face value reading of the NT between Paul's group and those who actually were around Jesus. Historically, those who lived with Jesus rejected Paul. In the Clementine Homilies, the Simon Magus guy is obviously Paul.
What do you make of the Ebionites? They were the ones that actually would've lived with Jesus. You think they'd be stupid and wanting to practice some type of Pharisee or Sadducee form of Judaism, just changing everything Jesus would've instituted? Jesus was an Essene. The Ebionites weren't Judaizers. They were a mystical sect. Look at Eusebius quoting Philo in Ecclesiastical History. He considered the Essenes in Egypt to be Christians before Jesus was around, and said they interpreted their sacred texts allegorically.
Look into it, the followers of Jesus were vegetarian, and tradition has it that the disciples were.
Your Church is a self-proclaimed authority that cherry-picked texts to accommodate their cherry-picked beliefs. And they blatantly changed the reading of the texts many times to suit their agendas. It's rather ridiculous that God would institute all kinds of arbitrary laws for a group of people for a time and then just do away with it all. The Mosaic law was not created by God. It's copy and pasted from other society's laws. How do you know that there was a historical man named Abraham and that God established a covenant with him? Who's the author of the book of Genesis?
By virtue of God assuming human nature in the person of Christ. This is crucial for Christianity. Christ is equally divine and equally human.
It's well attested to historically. The Church itself is a testament. There are many records and circumstantial evidences to the historicity of the Jesus Christ and the early Church. As for the radical skepticism of anything outside your empirical observation - Were you there when you were born? Maybe you weren't actually born of your parents and you were lab grown as a clone by a secret DARPA program? Are your parents and the government the ones controlling the records and feeding you their story? That's rather convenient.
As if that would mean something to you? If the Church held such a record (and it does actually) you'd instantly say it's made up. The veracity of the system is not proven a single way - it's a holistic system that justifies its claims by internal consistency, historicity, explanatory power and justification for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. It's a package deal.
By historical analysis and writings describing historical figures and events at the time. The epistles were written around 20 years after the Resurrection - people generally tend to know what happened 20 years ago, especially within a very tightly-knit movement and community. Luke's account of the Resurrection in 24 is summarized. Acts 1 is the correct timeframe. How do I know that? That's what the early Church Fathers taught.
That's a common one. Paul was received by Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother). Considering they trusted him there's no reason to doubt Paul, if one believes the Gospels. There's no tension between Paul and other parts of NT unless one misinterprets his letters.
So we're supposed to believe the Clementine Homilies produced by judaizing sect in the 4th c. now? I thought you were skeptical?
They were an early Jewish-Christian sect and not part of Jesus' disciples. They didn't even exist during His time and weren't witness to the events, nor were they in any way connected to the apostles. Their theology is influenced by 2-3c debates. Their Christology is less primitive than Paul's (who wrote around 50AD). They rely on edited gospels and not on early oral tradition and the lexicons (how the Early Church operated). And the stupidest part is their criticism of Paul presupposes his already established authority. Why would you distrust Paul but trust them, when they came after him and didn't even knew the apostles?
Here, I gave you plenty of reasons. I could just do what you did and be unreasonably incredulous: But how do you know what they were? Were you there? Maybe the Church made them up along with making up their own history?
This of course exposes your double standard when looking back at history - you willingly accept the narrative you like and are extremely skeptical of the opposite. This is something all gnostics do because all authority of the past is under suspicion and only they (and their preferred obscure sect) have the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things. It's always about rebelliousness and going against authority.
I think that's enough deboonking for today.
In that case, you worship a man that you call God.
Do have anything that Jesus actually wrote? You allegedly have texts of what Jesus supposedly said. Did he say or do any of that stuff though? Relying on what people say about events from 20 years prior is a pretty good way to get hoodwinked and manipulated. Perhaps that's why Christianity spread so much with people that weren't around the area and didn't meet the historical Jesus.
If Luke 24 is a summarized version, that's not historically accurate then. It calls into question the historical accuracy of all of it. There are crucifixion and resurrection details that don't fit together. The differences in perspectives doesn't bode well for painting an accurate picture. The book of Mark ends rather abruptly. Out of the different endings, which do you find to be the correct one?
You believe Peter, John, and James accepted Paul because of what it says in the Biblical texts? Those guys would've been Ebionites, and are you saying that the Jesus movement failed under the people that were around Jesus? The Christian movement did not arise with them. The term Christ was in use before Christianity came about.
Bring out the list if there is one. Lets see it. If not for me, then for anyone that is reading our conversation.
Has your packaged deal ever heard of Biblical criticism? It's like you deny even the chance of corruption coming into the texts. Face it, Paul didn't write all the letters attributed to him and traditional beliefs surrounding the authorship were wrong.
If you keep "correctly" interpreting something, you can construe something any way you want it. Perhaps why people even get the idea there was conflict between them is because there was.
Jesus was an Essene, and the Ebionites were followers of Jesus that came out of the Essenes as a separate group. They continued their manner of living, which included vegetarianism. Go look in the Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. In a footnote he makes mention about how Jesus' family members belonged to the Ebionites.
When it comes to something like Islam and Mormonism with guys like Muhummad and Joseph Smith making all kinds of claims, I'm sure you apply critical thought and don't just blindly believe what they say. You apply critical thought to what I believe. I do the same to what you believe. What convinces us to our beliefs isn't going to work for everyone. You can state you have this big church tradition, but I don't find it impressive at all like you do.
I find it ironic that Christians bash Gnostics about how only they have some special knowledge by which they're saved when Christians are the ones professing to have special knowledge of a dying and resurrecting Jesus-God by which they're saved. Doesn't your Church claim to be the only ones in the world with the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things?
Still awaiting for you to dive into your TAG argument. You said you could prove it, then do it.
Since I think the Bible is the inspired Word of God and in that writing this person says his name is Paul, I trust the Lord to not let him lie in the writing.
What do you mean by you think "the Bible is the inspired Word of God"? How far are you taking that?
What do you make of Jeremiah 8:8 NASB where it mentions the lying pens of the scribes: "“How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the Law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie."? Doesn't look like it portrays God as preventing corruption from happening.
God often talks about the crime of rewriting (edit: retelling) His word incorrectly. His truth is alive and living and sees through the corruption. There are many translations and yet His truth prevails..
How do you know God inspired anyone to write what they did or said what the texts say it said? I've heard man proclaiming it's God's Word and that God inspired it. Just because it says it doesn't make it so though. The world and history are full of people proclaiming that God inspired them or said things to them.
With texts like in the Bible, I see those as being prime targets for corruption and control. Controlling people through fear, and much like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, it's man writing in the name of God.
I believe in God, but that it speaks to people through their heart and various impressions upon them and not words on paper from other people.
This is exactly how I know what is true, I ask Him. Some revelations have taken most of my life to be connected and I'm still being prepared for others. I learn even more by asking Him to read His word with me.
It always comes down to the heart with God. He speaks to His creation and delights in it.
That's why I reject a literal interpretation of the Bible. I find such a view completely at odds with any kind of a loving or even competent God. The stories in the OT portray God as an angry and whiny emotionally unstable petty micromanaging tyrant and mass murderer. Having all the power to anything it wants but continually failing, whining, and going on hateful rants. It's not convincing that's the God of creation talking.
Symbolically though, the Hebrew texts jam packed with stuff. The Israelites came from a group of Canaanites and created a symbolic backstory. Much how George Washington was said to cut down a cherry tree when he didn't, the guys that wrote the Hebrew texts used things that the people were familiar with to create a mythology to base society on. The Greeks and Romans did not integrate their mythology into the fabric of their society like the Hebrews and that's why it is still around.
God is infinite and beyond comprehension. I find it ridiculous to think God's ultimate plan for the world would be to create a problem and then sacrifice itself to itself to fix the problem, and blame its creation for being the way he created it and has it to be. If God created mankind to have a relationship with it as Christians say, and even one person ends up in some kind of hellish existence not in relationship with God, then God failed to accomplish what it set out to do. I don't believe God's a failure, and that's one reason I don't buy into a Jesus-God sacrifice for sins.
This is a lot to unpack and I'm happy to continue this conversation. I can tell you I agree that God is not a whiny tempermental baby and I would like to help you better understand Him as explained in His word. And I can tell you what I think:
God created a perfect creation, angels, earth and everything in it and then humans but He gave all sentient creatures freewill, it is the cost of real love, and knowing this risk, He thought it worthwhile, so I do too.
He has never failed and He is a personal God intimately involved with His creation and He sacrificed Himself to keep us because only He can love us best.
I'll be honest, the way God brags about defeating the Levantine, a mere sea creature in Job, just makes him out to be a being limited in power and size. Defeating a sea creature shouldn't be anything noteworthy for a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that made the stars and the universe.
I am a Christian btw, that passage in Job always struck me as odd and limiting the magnificence of God.
How much of the OT have you read? God's Word is all around us and within us. As you say, His truth is alive and living. He speaks through people's hearts and is a personal God because it dwells within us and we are its children. A book telling us what God wants or God's truth is not necessary. I don't need a book to teach me about morality when I can see how my actions affect others around me. I don't need a book to teach me right from wrong because I can reflect on my actions to see what's beneficial and not beneficial. I can have the foresight to gauge what kind of outcomes my actions will lead to. When God speaks to people through His Word, He's not speaking to people through unliving words on paper, but through the heart with the experiences of life that we undergo.
God created the light and the darkness, good and evil. Through the struggles in duality comes maturity and that leads to Wholeness. Creation is perfect the way it is. Angels are symbolic for the Natural Laws governing our world. Earth is the school house of God. Everything in it is a projection of our own Mind which serves as a bio-feedback machine to help us grow by returning to us the fruits of what we sow. Freewill exists within the parameters of God still being in control.
It's plagiarized and poorly organized writing from 12 vagrants and usurpers.
Also Paul is not a saint, he is a civilization destroyer.
Saul definately destroyed people but he was forgiven and given a new name, Paul, which publically labeled the change of man, an evolution, if I may.